“We regret that the error was made, but no one’s security has been compromised,” spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told the Times.

The Times emailed a correction note to readers and also posted a note on its homepage about the error.

The email, which I received around 1:15 p.m., contains “Important information regarding your subscription,” according to the subject line, and offers a special home delivery rate for subscribers who recently cancelled. Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha initially told the paper the message was spam, but “others familiar with The Times’s technical operations said it was unclear whether it was spam or possibly an erroneous mass e-mail.”

Times reporter Amy Chozick tweeted at 3:29 p.m.: ” ‘The email was sent by the NYT,’ a spokeswoman said. Should’ve gone to appx 300 people & went to over 8 mil.” The email went to 8.6 million people who have given the paper their email addresses.

The Times says the email was not sent by Epsilon, but by a Times employee, who appears to have made the type of mistake Victor described.

The paper sent a follow-up email to subscribers Wednesday afternoon. It reads:

Dear New York Times Reader,

You may have received an e-mail today from The New York Times with the subject line “Important information regarding your subscription.”

This e-mail was sent by us in error. Please disregard the message. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

Sincerely,

The New York Times

The original email reads:

Dear Home Delivery Subscriber,

Our records indicate that you recently requested to cancel your home delivery subscription. Please keep in mind when your delivery service ends, you will no longer have unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps.

We do hope you’ll reconsider.

As a valued Times reader we invite you to continue your current subscription at an exclusive rate of 50% off for 16 weeks. This is a limited-time offer and will no longer be valid once your current subscription ends.*

Continue your subscription and you’ll keep your free, unlimited digital access, a benefit available only for our home delivery subscribers. You’ll receive unlimited access to NYTimes.com on any device, full access to our smartphone and iPad® apps, plus you can now share your unlimited access with a family member.†

the NYT is not fit for bird cage liner, they should be paying ME to read their garbage

Anonymous

For the inconvenience, the Times should honor the offer of 16 weeks at 50% off to any subscriber to got the e-mail and wants it. That’s the problem with these kind of mistakes; the companies just ignore their own mistakes but if you as a customer happen to click on the wrong thing and order the wrong thing, you are stuck.

Anonymous

I got these too. I was confused since I didn’t have a Times sub.

Anonymous

What disturbed me was their immediate impulse to declare it spam and deny it came from them. For one thing, even if someone else had sent it, it really wouldn’t have been spam. But second, they basically said, we don’t care what the truth is; we’re going to cover our ass.

Anonymous

the phone line was busy when i called, but a recording gave several options, including call back later OR respond by e-mail. however, the e-mail address given by the recording did NOT work. sigh.

http://www.intrinsicstrategy.com FrankCatalano

Somehow, I think despite the correction (which I also received) and the fact this wasn’t a third party misrepresenting itself as the Times, this is going to go down in the annals of email as “self-inflicted spam.”

http://www.poynter.org Poynter

Mine arrived a few minutes ago. It’s posted above. –Julie

http://www.poynter.org Poynter

Mine arrived a few minutes ago. It’s posted above. –Julie

http://twitter.com/benknight8 ben knight

You believe anything. Sending a “follow-up” e mail is probably not going to happen, obviously.

http://twitter.com/benknight8 ben knight

You believe anything. Sending a “follow-up” e mail is probably not going to happen, obviously.

http://www.poynter.org Poynter

It confused me too. My digital subscription is about to end, so I figured they meant to send me an email about that but sent the print subscriber notice instead. I imagine most people (not working in media) just deleted it and didn’t give it much thought. –Julie

http://www.intrinsicstrategy.com FrankCatalano

I was among the confused (though I didn’t call). Had cancelled my NYT subscription tied to the email address that received the rogue email, but it was months ago (not “recently requested”). Yet recently, my wife had re-subscribed using her email address. At one point we thought it was spam due to the “@newyorktimes.com” from: address, rather than “@nytimes.com.” Certainly raised our awareness of the Times.

http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

How many subscribers will cancel and demand the cut-rate deal??? Seems they’re entitled to it.

http://profiles.google.com/rp509855 Rod Paul

How many subscribers will cancel and demand the cut-rate deal??? Seems they’re entitled to it.

http://www.octechnophile.com David Amodt

how many subscriptions will be lost by this stunt i wonder

http://www.octechnophile.com David Amodt

how many subscriptions will be lost by this stunt i wonder

http://www.poynter.org Poynter

Probably not many since the phone service was dysfunctional/overwhelmed by confused callers! –Julie

http://www.poynter.org Poynter

Probably not many since the phone service was dysfunctional/overwhelmed by confused callers! –Julie

http://www.intrinsicstrategy.com FrankCatalano

So how many new subscriptions did the “error” result in?

Anonymous

reminds me of the “We want you back” spam I just received from Time Mag. Marked as spam, Time.